Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YemenWarriorBoy (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 30 January 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive367#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Rajiv_Dixit#RFC_can_we_say_he_peddaled_false_hoods_in_the_lede

(Initiated 18 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 11 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 222 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 77 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 76 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 68 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 57 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 44 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 38 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 15 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 38 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 7 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper 🚀 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Request for comment on greenhouse emissions

(Initiated 88 days ago on 27 September 2024) Lots of considered debate with good points made. See the nom's closing statement. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 16#Category:Origin stories

(Initiated 22 days ago on 2 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#Template:Support-group-stub

(Initiated 10 days ago on 14 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 90 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 67 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 48 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 31 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 56 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Crashsnake

Crashsnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am looking for input on what to do with User:Crashsnake. I have seen his name pop up a lot both on my watchlist, and in other places. A perusal of his talk page going back over three years, many editors have tried to reach out to him to get his attention and try to communicate with him. He does not respond on his talk page, and rarely leaves edit summaries. I am concerned that we have a basic competence issue with this user , who is apparently often described as disruptive and engages in edit warring.

I considered starting a user RFC to bring up these issues, but this user's particular non-communicativeness makes me concerned that such a thing would be pointless. Reviewing his contributions list on user talk pages (with none on his own page), article talk pages, Misplaced Pages pages and Misplaced Pages talk pages reveals fewer than 10 total edits between those spaces in over a 3 year span. While a user is not required to communicate in any of these venues, it is important to respond to people when they bring issues to your attention, and the fact that he has used these at all tells me that he does know how to use them, so the only conclusion I can come to is that he chooses not to communicate with other editors.

His block log reveals that he has been blocked twice by J Greb and once by Nightscream, both of whom made multiple efforts to reach out to him before blocking him. Spidey104 has also made quite a bit of effort to reach out to him, again with no response. What, if anything, can be done to get this user to communicate with other editors rather than shutting everyone else out and going back to the same behaviors to get his way? If there is nothing that can be done, should we consider a topic ban or more serious measures? BOZ (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that they're not responding in any way, a topic ban is largely meaningless. A wake up block might be necessary. Blackmane (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that he has had three "wake up blocks" already – one just two months ago – which failed to catch his attention. Since, as far as I can tell, his editing is limited to articles about comic book related topics (characters, movies based on comics, etc.), topic banning him from comic-related articles would definitely catch his attention. If and when he is able prove to the community that he is here to work collaboratively, the topic ban could be lifted. If he just decides to "become someone else's problem" by moving on to another subject area and exhibiting the same behavior there, then he would likely face an altogether ban. Please tell me if I am going about this all the wrong way. BOZ (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans are not a valid solution for anything. All they do is shift the problem from one group of editors to another. My feeling is, if an editor is causing problems on a persistent, ongoing basis, and refuses to acknowledge warnings, then he/she should be blocked, indefinitely, until he/she responds. Period. Nightscream (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Real nice suggestions. You guys make it sound like the "persistent, ongoing problems" I cause are edits that are completely irrelevant any said page that I've edited. I mean the way you all talk about me makes it sound like I make edits that are completely repetitive (or even inappropriate). Crashsnake 10:50, 21 January 2014

They are. Nightscream (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Crashsnake: Communication is vital in any collaborative editing atmosphere. A quick glance at your talk page tells me perhaps wikis aren't a good fit for you. -- œ 13:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Crashsnake, although it is unfortunate that it took a ban discussion to get a response from you, but perhaps this can be a good starting-over point for you? While we have your attention, would you please explain why you usually do not respond to other editors when they bring up concerns on your talk page, and why you do not usually use edit summaries on your edits? BOZ (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the main problems with your edits, Crashsnake, is that you make large changes in one edit without any explanation in the edit summary. Because you have a history of edit warring or making bad edits it is hard for other editors to assume good faith without an explanation of what you have done, especially when you remove large portions of articles. I will admit that some of your edits are helpful, but the unexplained changes, large removals, and no response to questions far outweighs those helpful edits. The point of this discussion is to stop all of the negatives and increase all of the positives of your editing. Do not take this as a personal attack, but as our last resort to help you so you do not have to be blocked. Spidey104 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Crashsnake made a two line comment three days ago and he has not done anything to change his behavior. Obviously he is aware of this discussion because he posted that comment, but clearly he doesn't care if he is doing nothing to change his behavior. I was hoping we could change his behavior without a block, but I think he's shown that he won't change his behavior without some sort of repercussion to show him he needs to change. Unfortunately I think we need to block him to get his attention and hopefully he will fix his behavior after the block expires. Spidey104 14:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to address this today as well. Yes, Crashsnake's brief response above was more than we ever see from him, but it does nothing to address any of the criticisms laid out here and elsewhere, nor does it even attempt to suggest that he may be willing to implement any changes. I may assume good faith that an editor is willing to change if they at least make an attempt or promise to do so, but I see nothing like that here. He continues to not use edit summaries, and although I have not checked for any further edit warring, I see no reason to think that will simply change on its own either. I think it's clear from responses above that my earlier suggestion of a topic ban has no traction. The question I must pose, then, is do we think another block will do any good, or should we have a discussion on whether the community would place a ban on him? If a block is the solution, it should be more than just a few days, which will expire and then he can just go back to business as usual; I would suggest an indefinite block in that case, with the proviso that if he can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors on an ongoing basis that he be unblocked at that point. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in support of an indef block. This kind of smug attitude of indifference to the community is simply rude and uncivil. Editing Misplaced Pages is a privilege, not a right. -- œ 16:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - I think we have enough to move forward with such a proposal. I'm not sure if I should include something about mentorship as an option for a return. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

(BOZ (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2014)

Proposal for indefinite block/ban

I propose that, based on the discussion above, Crashsnake (talk · contribs) be indefinitely blocked (or alternately, banned) by the community until such a time that he can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors on an ongoing basis. If you wish to oppose this measure, please suggest an alternative approach which you believe would be effective to encourage the user to improve his approach. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block, as proposer. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block per BOZ's reasonings. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per BOZ's reasonings. An indefinite block seems to be the only way to start making progress, because as Nightscream said, a ban would only push this issue onto another group of editors, if he chose to edit elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I am all for blocking him, but I think we are moving too quickly by jumping all of the way to an indefinite block. His previous blocks have only been for two weeks or less. I think we should take a larger step up from two weeks than a month, but I don't think we should jump to indefinite. I think blocks could fix his behavior. I recently went from this to this with another editor who seemed to have no intention of changing his behavior because of a block. Spidey104 03:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Spidey, you may have run into the exception that confirms the rule. The idea with an indefinite block like this is typically that at some point the editor kind of gets it and has to make an effort to get the block undone, not just wait it out. Indefinite is not infinite, that's the rationale. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Right, that is what I was thinking - it puts the onus on Crashsnake to decide that he wants to improve his approach, which is what I am saying in my proposal. I also thought about suggesting that accepting a mentorship would be a good way to demonstrate good faith on his part. Indefinite could mean that he thinks about it for a few days and bites, or he could say never mind and remain uncommunicative and stay blocked for however long. Indefinite just means that there is no specified duration - could be days, weeks, months, years, or continually. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Query What is this "willingness to collaborate" going to look like? Too often these blocks turn into a demands for groveling and penance. I'm not saying nothing should be done; I'm saying I'd like to see specific things we want from Crashsnake to allow them to continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages (that's the goal, right?) NE Ent 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose that is entirely subjective... I imagine the answer you are looking for would have to be up to whatever admin would be unwilling to unblock him. BOZ (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block per discussion above. -- œ 07:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - œ™ is absolutely correct in saying that "Communication is vital in any collaborative editing atmosphere." An editor who is perfect in every other way might just barely get by without communication but I can't imagine such a scenario. And as Drmies says, indefinite is not infinite. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb

I have been holding an editing discussion with User:Joefromrandb on the article Joe E. Ross. The entire discussion can be viewed on the article's talk page. When an established uninvolved editor came in and gave their opinion on the matter, Joefromrandb attacked the person, stating "I had little doubt someone would have the admin's back sooner or later. I guess I'll have to sort through this pile of shit piece-by-piece to find out how much, if any, of it is actually true. Congratulations, the both of you." When the editor defended giving their opinion, Joefromrandb stated "I'm wrong? Perhaps you can show me just where the fuck I'm wrong." When I told Joefromrandb to stop the personal attacks, he said "Do I need to stop beating my wife, too?"

It turns out that Joefromrandb has already been blocked six times in recent months for disruptive editing and personal attacks. In addition, he had been the subject of a number of admin noticeboard discussions, including this one from earlier this month. Based on this history I would have immediately blocked Joefromrandb. However, as an admin involved in an editing discussion with him, I will not do so. I hope other uninvolved admins will examine this case and decide what to do.

I don't have an issue with edit disputes or even losing your cool once in a while. But attacking editors who are merely expressing their opinion is not something we should tolerate, especially when the user has a long history of doing this.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You could have just told the truth and said I've been blocked five times over the course of more than a year. The gist of your argument would have been the same. How, exactly, does fudging the numbers benefit anyone? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I should have said you were blocked four times in the last few months, and 6 times in the last year. But adjusting the time frame doesn't change the pattern I'm seeing here.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That would have also been untrue. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, how many more times will Joefromrandb have to be brought before AN/ANI before the community finally agrees on an indef block? GiantSnowman 14:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. What an incredibly fallacious argument. Honestly, it's scary that you're an admin. You should be required to understand logical fallacies before being allowed to use your admin tools. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But it's not. This an editor with well known problems. I've lost count of how many times his conduct has been raised at the drama boards, and there's of course his recent RFC. Oh, and if you think you can do a better job than me/us, WP:RFA is thataway... GiantSnowman 12:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Again with the same fallacies? I don't care how many times he's been brought here, as that has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. And having been the subject of a bogus RFC myself, that again has no bearing on this thread. Your entire "if there's smoke, there's fire" line of reasoning is fallacious, and editors who rely on it tend to misuse it, such as filing AN/ANI/RFC's against users who they don't like. You can have your precious RFA. You know what to do with it. I don't believe it is improving Misplaced Pages, and one doesn't need it to edit. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to comment about editor behavior, but that article obviously and currently has some weight and accuracy issues. I can already see a quote that's attributed to the subject in the article, that another source attributes to someone talking about the subject. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And that's why we're holding an edit discussion. But when other editors join in the discussion, and are immediately attacked for their opinion, that has a chilling effect on the ability to reach editorial consensus.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's my general recommendation in cases that are about editor interaction rather than article content, misuse of tools, or an editor who simply has an uncontrolled combative personality (I'm not seeing any of these in the complaint above - the 5 blocks I can see are spaced far enough apart that "combative personality" probably doesn't apply): IF it's clear that the accusation is just AND the accused realized he did something he shouldn't have AND he apologizes, then nothing more needs to be done. If the accusation is just but the accused doesn't want to apologize or refused to admit there is a problem, a temporary "until you see the folly of your ways" interaction ban, page-ban, or broader ban (but no broader than necessary) may be in order. I would hope that "temporary" would be measured in hours or days not longer. Basically, I'm looking for reconciliation and restoration of good editor-editor relationships so that we all can get back to building the encyclopedia, together. Of course, if it's not clear that the accusation is just then none of the above apply. If the accusation is clearly malicious then the whole thing turns on its head. By the way, this is a general statement. I have not read the diffs so I do not know if it is specifically applicable to this situation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the linked discussion and at the merits of the allegations being made against the named editor. I see an editor understandably frustrated at having to wade through poorly sourced negative material while editors and admins who should know better attack the messenger. Eventually people like Joefromrandb will be run off while the encyclopedia is filled to the brim with civil POV pushers slapping each other on the back. As usual, the priorities are backwards. You can be civil all you want and it won't change the underlying problem. Joe's curt responses and impatience are the symptom of the problem, which is not being addressed. Bringing up the fact that he's been blocked before proves nothing. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at Joefromrandb's recent edits to Joe E. Ross? Here is a sample:
  • Remove "Ross's personal life was as noisy and troubled as his screen characters." diff
  • Correct spelling of "Oo!" to "Ooh!". diff
  • Remove gossip attack section, sourced to a blog. diff

  Joefromrandb may be overly blunt, but at least he seems to understand what should be in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

All those edits you mention are perfectly fine and should have been made. And as I mentioned, I have no problem with the edit discussion, or changes to the article, which are indeed being made and, it appears, consensus now being reached on the article. But Joefromrandb was not being too blunt--he attacked an editor who joined the discussion. This is a pattern which he seems to repeat over and over. This isn't POV pushing. This is about an editor attacking other editors and having a history of doing so.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I personally think Misplaced Pages would be better off if joe was less combative and less profane; I full listing of how I think WP could be better would be seriously tl;dr, so my opinion isn't terribly important. What is important if we remove all the imperfect there'd be no one left to, you know, write content. alf laylah wa laylah did not "defend themselves" so much as counterattacked with snark "That must be a comfort to you." I'm not really interested in trying to sort out the relative merits of the slung mud.
What I'd like to see in the next AN / ANI / RFCU on Joe is examples where the other editors involved were being 100% compliant with with guidelines on content and conduct and Joe just teed off of them out of the blue. Until that happens, I encourage other editors just to ignore his snarky ad hominem and stay focused on the content discussion. NE Ent 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not likely to ever see that, because: A.) I've made it a point to apologize in the rare cases that I've been a dick without cause, and B.) Because the c-pushers of this site will never behave in the manner you described. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But, um, joe ... you're never allowed to be (as you say) "a dick" either with or without cause. So, if you temper that, you'll never need to apologize. Besides, apologies after the fact are not "get out of jail free" cards. Discretion is the greater part of valour :-) ES&L 11:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just couldn't resist, huh? "Never need to apologize"? So you think moral perfection should be required to edit Misplaced Pages? What if I told a user to "grow the fuck up"? Should I apologize, or simply edit from an alternate account? Or if enough users were pissed off at me to have a potential Arbcom case hanging over my head? Apologize, or switch accounts? Talk about a "get out of jail free card"! Joefromrandb (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, nice. If false and out-of-context statements is your response when someone comes to your aid as often as I have, and when my statement above is clearly an attempt to support you positively ... I'd hate to review your edits when you're in some kind of passionate editing dispute. Wow. ES&L 15:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If that was "an attempt to help me positively" then I misunderstood it. All I saw was a straw-man. I made a simple statement that I have apologized in the rare cases I have been a dick without cause. I think most reasonable people would agree that that is the right thing to do. Your response was that I'm "not allowed to be a dick" and "apology is not a 'get out of jail free card'". I never said any such thing; you were arguing against a position that I have never, ever held. By beginning your sentence with the word "but", you indicated that you were countering my statement, but my statement in no way supported the position you attacked. As far as my statements being "false and out-of-context", they were in no way whatsoever false, and I wish you would strike that. Out of context? Yes, quite. I was building my own straw-man to show you how yours looked to me. We apparently misunderstood each other. Not too hard to do in this environment, as your eponymous panda illustrates. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

FFS, can someone close this discussion? I'm the putatively attacked editor. I didn't feel attacked. Joefromrandb is combative, sure, but he's constructive and writes and debates content. That's what we're here for. We worked it all out on the talk page and what do you know, he was right and I was wrong and nothing got broken and the article's in better shape than it was.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Joefromrandb (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)شكر

Range block needed again for disruptive IP

Please see WP:NPOVN#Marian Dawkins biased editors removing criticism from RS and WP:NPOVN#Marian Dawkins. An IP hopper has been editing disruptively and using edit summaries to attack other editors for some time at Pain in animals, Animal welfare and their associated talk pages as well as earlier posts to NPOVN and here where a 48 hour rangeblock was imposed. See also . Thanks. Um, sorry, I should learn how to do this myself but ranges scare me. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping User:Kww will do this. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's too large of a range, and will require a filter to perform. Those take a little while to create, test, and maintain, so I'd like to see a bit more of a consensus that it's required.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• All in favor: aye. I'll get my sockfarm to agree as well, Kevin. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• I also support a range block. The same person has caused disruption on animal-rights related articles too, going back many months, and has been spamming someone's PhD thesis into various articles, including articles unrelated to the topic of the thesis. SlimVirgin 21:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Under test.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Kww, maybe you'll find some stylistic fingerprints in this rant. I'm not sure if you can capture their many grammatical errors and typos, but the numbering of Really Important Points is a giveaway. Maybe they'll change that now--that wouldn't be a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Derailing of Merger Discussion at Duke of Edinburgh's Award

Page at Issue: Talk: DofE Award Merger Proposal

Background: An editor, Murry1975, relocated my comments in a merger discussion (]). I moved them back. He then undid my move with the edit comment "where it fucking was in the first place." I again moved my comments back.

A second editor, Mabuska, then arrived and chastized the first editor - Murry1975 - for moving my comments. Exasperated that the merger discussion was being derailed, I thanked Murry1975 for his support but politely asked him to keep his comments to the topic of the thread and not "refight the last 800 years of Irish history" as the two editors appear to be on different sides of that dispute based on their userboxes and I could see where this was rapidly heading once Mabuska cautioned Murry1975 he "shouldn't have moved them."

Issues: At this point Mabuska essentially began "unloading" on me. He dug through the last week of my edits and began linking to a comment I made in a completely separate discussion on an unrelated high-profile article Talk that had become heated. He used the AGF tag on my talk page to post a "baiting" comment. When I made a firm, but polite, request he stop posting on my Talk page, he simply continued to post on it. In the Talk section of the original article he savaged me with "I feel like cursing at you too considering the absolute bullshit you are coming out with" (]) in reference to my position statement on the merger proposal. When I politely asked him to indent his comments so they were properly threaded he shot back with "oh wait is this better your Indentedness." (]) He teased me as "antagonizing" in response to my request he stop using four-letter words in a merger discussion. (])

Conclusion: A simple two-article merger proposal has essentially been derailed due to this editor's sudden and inexplicable rage. I want to AGF but, frankly, it's rather hard to do so in light of the above laundry list of foul language and sarcasm and the more serious issue that the entire merger discussion is now essentially void since it's been overrun with this extremely aberrant behavior that seemed to explode out of nowhere. Through it all I have been extremely firm but demure in my comments, never using foul language and never yelling at Mabuska and Murry1975, even as the situation spiraled out of control, as a review of the discussion will demonstrate. At this point I think the situation can only be resolved by Admin intervention. I take this action reluctantly as I have never requested an ANI on another editor in my 3 years on WP. I have posted it here instead of Incidents because I don't want to generally see Mabuska be sanctioned as I don't know if this is endemic behavior as I've never interacted with him before, I'm just hoping some temporary control (e.g. temporary topic block) on the Talk page can be applied until the merger discussion can conclude. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming you posted this as I said I would post an RFCC on me, you, and Murry1975 to see what they made of the behaviour? Regardless I will post a response seeing as you have started this for me:

• First of all in regards to the Duke of Edinburgh talk page, BlueSalix and Murry1975 got into a tizz with each other over the placement of comments and the forced moving of them.
• I came across the page when I noticed this warning given by BlueSalix to Murry1975 on Murry1975s talk page, which I am long term stalker of it as me and Murry collaborate a lot on Ireland related articles.
• I noticed this remark "You're creating an extreme amount of confusion in this Talk section, with the apparent intent of derailing the discussion to avoid this merger" directed by BlueSalix at Murry1975. I know Murry1975s edit style and never once can I say that this accusation stands to scrutiny and is a blatant personal attack because BlueSalix isn't getting their way.
• Thus I gave my view on the proposal and highlighted that BlueSalix's false claim against Murry1975 was not the first such false accusation they have made. This prior false accusation is this, and whilst I don't know whether it was aimed at me or User:Kahastok, it was uncalled for and unneeded and I took it as a personal slight.
• In response BlueSalix decides to once again start stirring drama by accusing me and Murry1975 of "to re-fight your differences as to the last 800 years of Irish history" despite the fact I agreed with Murry1975s position!
• In response I start getting annoyed and to a degree uncivil.
• Following this I decide to leave BlueSalix a WP:AGF warning on their stating what I see as the facts. Crucially I propose that if BlueSalix apoligised for the false accusations then I would tone myself down.
• In response BlueSalix posts this, to which I respond.
• The last interaction is back at the DoEA article where BlueSalix responded to me to which my last response was this, which I then striked.

Yes throughout it all I could of been more civil, however BlueSalix continued to antagonise by their behaviour, tone of messaging, and their blatant refusal to acknowledge their false accusations (one at me, one at Murry1975, and one at both me and Murry) and apologise for it when I stated that an apology would help.

However I must now counter fresh false accusations:

• "He dug through the last week of my edits and began linking to a comment I made in a completely separate discussion on an unrelated high-profile article Talk that had become heated. He used the AGF tag on my talk page to post a "baiting" comment". - firstly I never dug through his edits, as stated Murry1975s talk page is on my watchlist and it was BlueSalix's warning dished out to Murry that got me curious in the article to see what was happening. Secondly I was involved in the discussion that BlueSalix made that comment so I hardly had to dig through his edit history to find it. It would also refute that that was baiting comment when what I essentially asking for was an apology.
• "In the Talk section of the original article he savaged me with "I feel like cursing at you too considering the absolute bullshit you are coming out with" (]) in reference to my position statement on the merger proposal." - actually it was in regards to your false accusation about me and Murry1975 reigniting 800 years of Irish issues, it had nothing to do with your position and you full well know that.
• ""oh wait is this better your Indentedness."" - I have no defence, I stated that as I was being a smart-ass as BlueSalix seems to have some issue with the indentation of comments.
• "He teased me as "antagonizing" in response to my request he stop using four-letter words in a merger discussion. (])" - I'm assuming you mean "four-letter words", you are referring to curse words like f&$k? Where did I use a curse word other than "bullshit"? Where did you request I stop using four-letter words?

Yes this is a mountain made out of a mole-hill, however it is a mountain that was made worse by BlueSalix's antagonising behaviour and refusal to acknowledge and apologise for his uncalled for off-topic false accusations. This from an editor who kept going on about keeping on-topic and wanting "restrained and professional manner" discourse.

BlueSalix had a simple solution, a few words. They don't want to utter them and thus accept their guilt. I know I am guilty of being uncivil, but I've been antagonised. Mabuska 00:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, kindly stop referring to me as antagonizing. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean? Instant ignoring of the core issue - BlueSalix's false accusations. Mabuska 00:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey just wait a minute!

• Firstly I didn't chastise Murry1975, I just stated that he shouldn't have done it. Considering I backed his opposition to your proposal, my comment about the moving of comments was an olive branch to show you I was not just agreeing with him because of your remark at the Falklands article, but because I agreed with the oppose regardless.
• Secondly you thanked me for the support not Murry1975, however your subsequent response made me reject it.
• Thirdly you made a serious error in judgement in trying to judge me and Murry1975s viewpoints based upon our user pages and user boxes and then expecting that to mean me and him are going to be at each others throats! We don't always agree but we work together quite a lot and never have a problem and even share in a bit of fun.

And in regards to this: "I have posted it here instead of Incidents because I don't want to generally see Mabuska be sanctioned as I don't know if this is endemic behavior as I've never interacted with him before, I'm just hoping some temporary control (e.g. temporary topic block) on the Talk page can be applied until the merger discussion can conclude.".

• Firstly why would i be topic-banned when the topic was not the problem?
• Secondly you interacted with me only four days ago at Talk:Falkland Islands replying directly to me so you cannot say "I've never interacted with him before".
• Thirdly, the thing with Misplaced Pages... everything is recorded. Mabuska 01:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(1) Here's the thing - I don't know you and I don't know Murry1975 and I don't know the history of your relationship. I can only respond to your actions as I view them. Your actions contain a lot of "fuck" and "bullshit" and "your anatognizing" and oh my "Your Indenetdness" and I demand "you apologize," so forth, etc. etc. If this is all part of what you just describe is fun play fighting together, that's totally fine. I have no problem with that. What I'd like, though, is if you could keep the fun to userspace and let us use the Talk page to discuss merger requests as I keep asking. The merger request is basically junked now. (2) And, you're right, I did post a 9-word response once to something you wrote. Thank you for that reminder. The tone, topicality, and style of your posts in that thread may need to be reviewed as well as it appears you were trying to start a political debate ("Argentina's position is obstinate," "Argentina is the state acting all Imperialistic," etc.) instead of participate in an NPOV edit discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

For now, busy at the moment, I will make to comments.

Firtsly, against TPG, my "oppose" was moved by BlueSalix to beyond his added comments, I re-positined it to where it was origanally all, with I admit an uncivil comment- which I asked oversight to remove, it was a comment born of frustration, this can be seen in the history, I had templated the mover and I add a cmment to stop moving it. It was again removed with some talkpage discussion on both mine and BlueSalix, where he accused me of drama and hijack, also claiming his comments where were they origanilly where- no mention of his moving of mine.

Secondly I would like to thank Mabuska for leaving the tp notice about this ANI as BlueSalix seems to have included me without including me.

I have not been on wiki since last evening, I took a step away from here yesterday as to clam down, I apologise for my uncivil edit summary in its wording, but not the conveyance of angst it was born from, which I still feel, as my comment is still out of place and now looks out of context. Murry1975 (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix please by all means ask for a review, the only editor to cause trouble at [[Falklands was you and your issue with comments and indentation, you know that problem you had with User:Elaqueate and User:Kahastok that I did not get involved in, the problem that took up a good half the discussion? The same problem that you started at the Duke of Edinburgh article with Murry1975?

I would also like the diffs of where I used the word fuck as BlueSalix claims, it should be easy to find at least one as they claim I've said it a lot of times to them. Otherwise BlueSalix is failing to provide diffs that back up the vast majority of claims or related ones that show how such a turn of events became as they have. Also I would like to see a diff showing how me and Murry1975 where engaging in play fighting at the Duke of Edinburgh article. Otherwise BlueSalix is making yet more false accusations and I would like to cite WP:BOOMERANG.Mabuska 14:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And just like Murry1975, I apologise for getting angry and letting it get the better of me, but likewise not for the conveyance of angst it came from. An apology for that depends on BlueSalix's ability to acknowledge their guilt and apologise for it. Mabuska 14:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

First - I didn't accuse you of saying "fuck." (see my OP for a specific list of the issues I've raised with respect to your extremely aggressive style of addressing other editors) / Second - As for "An apology for that depends on BlueSalix's ability to acknowledge their guilt and apologise for it." I'm not going to address that. This isn't Judge Judy; I'm not looking for apologies or punishments, declarations of guilt, or public beheadings (also, as per my OP). As per my OP, I am here to seek assistance in getting the extremely aggressive style of commenting that has derailed a merger discussion under control as interpersonal appeals have thus far failed. (I'm also not sure what I'd apologize for - I think you're upset that I asked you and Murry not to use the merger thread to have a debate about Irish history. I stand by that request 100%, but if you'd like me to apologize for it and if that will get things calmed down, okay, I apologize. I still would rather you take political debates to user space, though.) Thanks, Mabuska! BlueSalix (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Murry1975, I realize your original move of my comments (]) was a GF mistake on your part and, while I'm sorry you became very upset in addressing it (as you've acknowledged), I consider it water under the bridge. That's why I didn't include you in this ANI. For my part, I'm sorry that - in the process of undoing your original reshuffling of my comment - that your comment also ended up getting moved. Manually undoing edits can sometimes result in confusion. Thanks, Murry1975! BlueSalix (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you for finally apologising (on at least one thing), however it would appear you don't totally grasp what I wanted you to apologise for, and thus it comes across as kind of hollow. You also need to accept your role in causing this mess with your false claims (which you continued to add to in this discussion here) and the statements you have made here that are contradicted by earlier statements by yourself. Like even now you can't help but make up false claims... "I'm not looking for apologies or punishments" - so you never called above for me to have a temporary topic-ban? "I still would rather you take political debates to user space," - what political debate? Me and Murry1975 never engaged in one, and no-one mentioned Irish politics until you did. If that was in response to the Falkland discussion, I explained that statement at the end of the discussion, where I told you it was explaining what the text in the article is referring too! Does it ever end? At least I accept my part in it. I'm abstaining from any more responses unless an admin asks me something. Mabuska 18:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Mabuska - for the fourth time, the only issues I have, or have raised, are in my OP with linked diffs and I stand by all of them. Everything subsequent that I've written is right here for people to read. As such, it is really not constructive to pick out a sentence here or there of my posts, quote it, and then introduce an interpretive "so what he's saying here is ..." This kind of dramatic intrigue is how a routine 200-word ANI gets turned into the Nuremberg Trials, and is exactly how my simple merger thread got trashed as well. I would kindly ask you to dial it down a little and just let the ANI run its course. Thanks, Mabuska! BlueSalix (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix, maybe you should read what the admin rote on your tp. My moving my comment back was right your continued re-positioning was wrong. So the apology about my mistake isnt accepted, I will follow the admin comment on your page and correctly position it, I will take your apology then. Murry1975 (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't believe Moriori had given you a carte blanche to continue to edit my comment from where I'd posted it and I believe you are seriously misinterpreting our conversation if you think he did. However, if you make the choice to continue to rearrange other editors comments to alter the intent of the original author, to pepper your edits with "fuck" and so forth, then honestly, there's really nothing I can do about it, other than to continue to politely ask you to to please stop and to empower yourself to edit in a non-combative spirit. I don't believe in edit-warring and I don't subscribe to a take no prisoners approach to Misplaced Pages. It's just not my style. Thanks, Murry1975! BlueSalix (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Through out my interaction with you BlueSalix you have continually displayed an attitude of ignoring what is actually said, either by others or in the process which you dont agree with.

"Murray1975 moved his oppose comment back to the top where it originally was. He had every right to do so and if that created collateral damage to your subsequent posts, then you would know why and could have amended them."

Every right to do so

I edit in a non-combative spirit. Its usually to the point- even to the extent I will answer everything point for point.

It is you who is continually personal, as pointed out above commenting, very incorrectly on my interactions with Mabuska, the 800 years comment. I put one f-bomb in an edit summary, I didnt "pepper" it anywhere, so thats a falsehood and a another personal attack. So with your rhetoric of non-combative editing I am sure you are going to strike that? Murry1975 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Murry1975. I've said many times that I accidentally moved your comment in the process of trying to reconstruct my own comment that you kept moving. I've been unambiguous on that point so I really don't know what else you're hoping to get out of me here. As for your accusations that I've now been making "personal attacks" within the ANI itself, I'm not going to address that. The issues I raised in my OP I stand by and are absolutely the only issues I'm going to discuss here. I'm confident WP admins are literate people and can read everything written in this thread without the need for interpreters or lobbyists. If an admin feels something I said merits sanction, I trust in her or his judgment to recognize it and to act appropriately. Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving it once is an accident moving it three times is totally untolerable. I am sure the admins reading this will see what you have written. You cant address it without admiting it. Good day. Murry1975 (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As previously stated, I moved it three times because I had to thrice repair your three edits to my comment and your words were getting wrapped up in a copy of a block of text. I certainly wasn't manually retyping it every time. You made a series of three complex positioning edits to my comment and, in trying to repair what you'd done, I touched your words. I acknowledge I touched your words. I've said I'm extremely sorry as it clearly upset you, but mistakes sometimes happen in life. That's a mistake. We deal with it and move on, just like we did. Yelling four-letter words or engaging in an unusual and aggressive style of commenting that has the effect, intended or not, of running a thread off the track is not a mistake. That's the OP of this thread and that's the only topic I'm here to discuss. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lucia Black proposal

Up above, there's a massive thread regarding User:Lucia Black and User:ChrisGualtieri, which has degenerated to the point that nothing can come of it. The sole exception is the "Outside proposal" section, which looks like something that might get consensus, either "yes" or "no". With this in mind, I've closed the whole thread and copy/pasted the "Outside proposal" section here, so it can be continue to be discussed without all the baggage of the existing section. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

For repeatedly wasting many volunteers precious time, for deliberately creating battlegrounds, for deliberately violating Interaction bans, the editor Lucia Black is indefinitely blocked until such time that they present an acceptable plan for how to avoid creating non-collegial editing environments/hounding/harassment that is accepted by a broad consensus of editors at the Administrators Noticeboard in a discussion to last no less than 48 hours. Should the indefinite block be successfully appealed, Lucia Black is to be under a community imposed 1-strike parole with a default back to the indefinite block or strengthening to a community ban.

• Support as proposer I'm tired of the semi-weekly "Lucia Black disruption" threads. The Anime topic space has made it's mark at AN* multiple times in conjunction with other editors. The other disputants have put away the deadly weapons, but it appears we have one editor who needs to be firmly sanctioned. Temporary blocks have not worked in the past (as Lucia was under a block in October), interaction bans have not worked, I doubt that topic bans would work because Lucia has demonstrated that they're willing to wait for an editor to make a mistake and spring a "And here's a bunch of policy violations they've also committed" therefore it is time to block untill the level of clue improves. Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Lucia only commented here because she was invited to defend her-self, other than that there is no proof that she has done any wrongdoing since the last time she got unblocked. Not saying she has a clean record but I do not think she needs to be sanctioned anymore for things she has already done in the past pre-recent block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Knowledgekid87's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, Oppose and Neutral (Bear with me...) -- Support: because far too much time has been wasted in shitstorms surrounding this user and an indef-block, although draconian, would be a definitive solution. Oppose: because I remain unconvinced the current situation demonstrated the failure of the IBAN remedy and the user has undeniable content contributions which benefit the readers. Neutral: because I personally would rather apply an indef-block and be rid of this issue entirely, but it would be irreponsible for me to indef-block while believing the block could be justifiably overturned by another admin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Look at one of her latest post. She gives a response "for people who don't want to read a wall of text, and then proceeds to write a 4,000+ wall of text rant, once again recycling all of her WP:IDHT thoughts. I think that best encapsulates her lack of awareness and inability to stop. These weekly Lucia threads are going to continue until we stop it, because she just can't. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Again there is no evidence that Lucia has done any wrongdoing since her last block. When you assume good faith it turns out as she wanted to see a GAN closed as it was it's time and her wanting to make a new start on Sailor Moon by helping to fix things up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support -- Just to think that we had finally come up with a workable solution. At this point, Lucia is wreaking havoc almost everywhere she goes. She was blocked less than 2 weeks after the new IBAN was proposed and were here yet again less than a month after the new sanctions are imposed. Note that this doesn't mean infinite, but it means until Lucia not only understands the problem with her editing, but also how she will change and what needs to happen. This is ridiculous and editors shouldn't have to put up with it. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I've converted the # characters into *, replacing numbered entries with bullets. Given the responses, the indentations, and the bit by me, the numbering simply wasn't working in its current format, and I'm completely unaware of any way to get it to work as desired. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support + Comment -- As long as this isn't a proposal for a permanent block. Comment: I would like a discussion to focus on Lucia Black's choice of topics and recommend a fresh start. A fresh start that initially, for a fixed and mutually agreed period, allows Lucia editing only articles that have no prior history of trouble involving Lucia whatsoever. If the trial period of editing unrelated topics ends successfully without new conflict the scope of restrictions is narrowed to once again allow editing in some areas that saw previous conflict. To be narrowed again further as time passes. The trial period will also allow other involved editors to disengage - with either voluntary cessation of mutual interaction or enforced interaction bans, and the temporary avoidance of previously problematic topics and articles by involved editors. Right now the restrictions are too narrow, imo.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose + Comment I've done nothing wrong. none of the articles were problematic not controversial at this point in time, and i have not made any controversial edits. Nor have i interrupted any progress from ChrisGualtieri. I still don't understand how involving myself in Sailor Moon is gaming the IBAN if he wasn't even involved in those articles. Ghost in the Shell (video game) either because all my edits were in favor of what the GAR was asking. As much as Verso.Sciolto claims these are problematic articles, they are not. I've asked time and time again from these editors, and each one who voted support has not provided reasoning, just accusations (some completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand). And i'm not the only editor who sees this. Nyttend can't understand the problem, and neither can Knowledgekid87 and Sjones23.Lucia Black (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment -- I have changed my vote and have struck trough support, leaving only the comment portion. After re-reading the wording of the proposal I've come to the conclusion that it indicates deliberate action from Lucia Black in the present instance. I will assume good faith and since I have apparently been unable to clarify my own objection to her choice of topics and examples to her satisfaction I can not support a block. I think there are unresolved issues but possible solutions for that are addressed in my initial comment which remains in this section. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Late edit to include: and examples. I will refrain from elaborating here and at this time, but as noted before, I would like, at the very least, a -moderated- opportunity to explain my own actions. I will note that I do not support a ban for Lucia Black now. Neither did I support nor did I solicit, a ban of Lucia Black when I approached Lucia Black first and followed up by contacting three administrators.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. How disappointing to see these editors embroiled again in more drama. I'm beginning to think that the only way to solve this would be a broad topic ban plus a strict interaction ban. This has gotten silly. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ultraexactzz: The problem here is their accusations is part bad faith and part "blind" faith. they don't really know what their arguing about. And if you look carefully, you'll see Sergecross himself trying to use mostly the AN report itself more than what i'm being accused of in the first place (a constant pattern in previous AN reports). The editors and even ChrisGualtieri have used Sailor Moon as evidence of gaming the IBAN regardless of him ever being involved in such an article to even consider "gaming the IBAN".Lucia Black (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'd oppose' the straight out indef block off the bat but would support an indefinite topic ban on all articles related to Anime and Manga. I'd like to see at least one more try at sorting this shit out before dropping the blockhammer. Blackmane (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No indefinitely bans, blocks, or any other sanctions should be given simply because Lucia was being baited by a third editor (Verso.Sciolto). Salvidrim! should have told Verso.Sciolto to back off and drop the subject. If that had happen, this drama wouldn't have occurred. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I object to the characterisation of my questions and suggestions to Lucia Black, posted by the editor using the IP address 24.149.117.220. Although I will refrain from elaborating here and at this time I would like, at the very least, a -moderated- opportunity to explain my actions. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the IP's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strikeout multiple opinion vote, you already commented above Sj - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban on the circumstances presented. bd2412 T 16:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment -- At some point I would like to address a comment written in the Counter Proposal section below by Knowledgekid87. That proposal section has now been closed by the proposer, Sergecross73. I will refrain from elaborating here and at this time, but as noted before, I would like, at the very least, a -moderated- opportunity to explain my own actions. I will note that I do not support a ban for Lucia Black now. Neither did I support nor did I solicit, a ban of Lucia Black when I approached Lucia Black first and followed up by contacting three administrators.}} Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• • I apologize I did not mean you, I meant the long running dispute between Lucia and Chris, I believe there is a way for both to occupy the same project but work on different pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to apologise. Thank you for clarifying. I consider this settled and have struck through my comment. I agree with you. I would like to see clearly marked boundaries for each to work within. Not bans.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that Lucia does not respect the restrictions placed on her. The obvious solution is escalating blocks, starting at 2 weeks for the next incident. This should be done without drama, because the IBAN is entirely unambiguous. Requests for unblocking should be rejected robustly. That puts the entire resolution where it should be: in Lucia's hands. If Lucia wants to edit, she can do it on the community's terms. If not, well, too bad. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @JzG: My restriction is to avoid interacting with ChrisGualtieri. since my 1-week block, i haven't done anything of the sort. However editors here are "claiming" that i'm gaming the IBAN. which is only presented by bad-faith.Lucia Black (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - You've got clear evidence that FMA was split by Baffle gab1978 on a (my) suggestion at the GAR and she knew this and made an RFC on the article within 8 hours of the IBan being enacted. Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) shows this. IBan means I cannot even post my edits or comment. Sounds like gaming to keep me out despite having a draft to drop and GAN. Yes, I was part of the SM GAR, but if Lucia wants - she can fix it - I don't want to deal with her. I already have a few other Good Article-ready pages to drop and nominate. I didn't want this to go to AN because the evidence isn't absolute and concise, but a year's worth of misery shows this won't be the "end". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion on Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) is a weak one to make, the discussion about splitting anime or keeping them into one article has been ongoing for months now. Your evidence is supported by assumptions of bad faith and nothing more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've been editing Sailor moon far before that GAR. And even then that was closed for a while. My response to another editor asking for help shouldn't justify "Gaming the IBAN".
• And whatever years of misery he claim, ChrisGualtieri has brought it on himself.Lucia Black (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Counter proposal - Lucia Topic Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So far, it seems that consensus is that the interaction ban is not enough, but an indef block is too strong. Lets meet in the middle then, as others have suggested as well. Almost all of Lucia's prior blocks and interaction bans stem from her problems in working under the scope of WP:ANIME. I propose that she be indefinitely topic banned by anything that falls under that Wikiprojects scope, broadly construed. It will be much more concretely defined than the IBAN (which would still be in place as well), but will still allow her to contribute to the project elsewhere. (She does a lot of work on video games, for instance.)

• Support - as nominator. 14:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The majority of Lucia's contributions are related to anime, and manga. So an effectively topic band on anime and manga related topics would effectively be an indefinite ban. The only problems she had with articles under the scope of WP:ANIME has been with Chris. So a solution that minimizes the negative impact on the contributions of both should be sought. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

She is also heavily involved with WP:VG and WP:SE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the IP's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, an editor should not have to give up editing in a broad subject because of interaction issues over a small number of articles in that subject. bd2412 T 16:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Again I fail to see what Lucia is guilty of since her last block, so some editors came forward with what looks like something, that is bad faith right there with no concrete proof. I hope Lucia helps out on the Sailor Moon articles as she has made good edits to Misplaced Pages. One editor should not have to bring this all down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel closed

An arbitration case about the behaviour of Kafziel (talk · contribs) with regards to the Articles for Creation process, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For conduct unbecoming an administrator by failing to respond appropriately, respectfully and civilly to good faith enquiries about his administrative actions, Kafziel (talk · contribs) is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship. The user may not seek advanced positions in an alternative account unless he links such account to his Kafziel account.
2. For his battlefield mentality in areas relating to Articles for Creation, Hasteur (talk · contribs) is admonished.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 20:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Massive problem, definitely Misplaced Pages is about to end, and probably the entire world

I went to add myself to Misplaced Pages:List of administrators aged 50 or more and found it does not exist. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Logan's Run. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Like ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! here too! Guy (Help!) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

42? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WHAT? The FILM? Sheesh. Only the radio show is canon, you should know this. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, should I volunteer to help fill the gap? I'm sure my RfA would be uncontroversial AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Support, very diplomatic candidate. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Ha. He thinks 50 is a problem. Walk a mile in my shoes, youngster. Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Shoes? When I were a lad we made do with old newspaper and string. And bloody grateful for it we were too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You should retire from being an admin, and return to the more sane life of an editor. Leave it to the Young Turks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, now. Let's not put any more on the poor Turks than we'd put on anyone else, no matter how old they are; that's nobody's business but theirs, anyway. It's rough out there in Constantinople, don'tcha know. GJC 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I too would now find myself in the admins-over-50 category, which amazes me, because I more and more find myself echoing the famous comments of Isaac Asimov:

"I still consider myself a child prodigy. I'm now in my late youth. (aside) I call it 'late' because it's dead."

More seriously on this subject, we should all pay tribute to this retiring administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There are probably more of us admins heading for 70 than is realised ;) Greatest respect for the retiring admin - at 18 years his junior I'm still a kid by comparison. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the clock is unforgiving. No three revert rule. No terms for vanishing and returning. I, being on the wrong side of the median, see both youthful ideology balanced with the wisdom and reality of time. To the extent I am able to live beyond my years, I strive to achieve but alas am thwarted by vandals, admins, and their kin. --DHeyward (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The youngest admin I know of was I think 11 when he got the mop. We now have a retiring admin at 83. That's quite a generational span across our admin corp. WJBscribe (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm still young. Although by medievil standards I'm ancient. ES&L 12:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

East Germany

Discussion has flared up yet again regarding the historical description of East Germany. Participants in the various discussions over the years have never been able to reach any formal consensus as to what should be used. This article falls within the scope of Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Apart from having attempted on a couple of occasions to moderate the discussions, I have not expressed any personal opinion and I'm not vested in any eventual outcome. However, I feel it is time for this situation to be addressed, and perhaps some admin discussion here as to what should be done to resolve the situation (rather than the content itself) would be appropriate. See talk:East Germany. 01:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

• 1.) Why "admin discussion", rather than "community discussion"? All editors should be allowed their say as to what actions admins should take to resolve the situation.
• 2.) Your declaration that that the page falls under discretionary sanctions has been challenged by more than one editor, so perhaps Arbcom should be consulted for clarification. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear that this article comes under discretionary sanctions and no reason why it should be discussed at AN. The discussion was recently re-opened by an IP who appears to be sock of a blocked user. (see SPI) I suggest blocking the account now, rather than waiting for SPI. TFD (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately SPI claims require evidence. Really. Collect (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of accounts with an MO that suggests they are paid socks, even without proof of master

• Wiki-PR and several other paid editing groups have been community banned for quite some time. However, the SPI most relevant to Wiki-PR has been essentially shut down due to concerns of the conflation of different groups of paid editors (which has no doubt happened to some extent.) I agree that concerns about conflating different groups of paid editors are valid, and that we've certainly conflated quite a few. (Some recent discussion about particular conflation concerns can be found here.) However, when it comes down to it - I don't think it matters what sockpuppeting paid editor posted what article, it's not stuff we want. When conflation concerns are meaning that accounts that are pretty much universally agreed to be those of *some* sockpuppeting paid editor are not being addressed, it's an issue.

I want to be clear: I am not proposing a ban on paid editing, I am only proposing a mechanism to more effectively enforce community bans (such as the Wiki-PR and Alex Konankyhin bans) that are already in place, as well as deal with other undisclosed sockpuppeting paid editors who we may not have detected. Because these editing groups often share behavioral patterns no one else does I believe we can block them with a high degree of accuracy, even if we don't know who they are. I realize that theoretically this might be within admin discretion anyway, but would like to get community approval of the idea, so that it is more widely adopted. I realize the extreme unusualness of putting in to place a formal ban against an unnamed group of entities, but believe it's a worthwhile approach, especially because it addresses valid concerns about conflation. I propose the following community ban be formally adopted:

In any situation where an administrator is alerted to a user and, after analyzing their behavior, determines that in the administrator's judgment the account is operating using a pattern of behavior that makes the account very likely to be operated by someone operating multiple undisclosed accounts for financial gain, they may be indefinitely blocked. This applies whether or not the account can be directly linked to an entity covered by an existing community ban. If such a block is placed, the account shall explicitly *not* be labelled as controlled by any particular organization, but shall be treated as if under a community ban unless the block is successfully appealed. If such a block is placed, it may be appealed through any of the ordinary methods of appeal, and if, after review, it appears the user is not in fact affiliated with such a group, the account shall be unblocked and no shadow shall be held over them.

• I don't want to formally limit what modus operandi this applies to - since we know paid socking groups change tactics, it would be less effective if we codified it. However, for purposes of demonstration, summed up from the Morning277 LTA, here is one MO that I would consider blockable: a user who has a one to two sentence userpage, who, after a series of ten edits to existing articles that are marked as minor and lack edit summaries and after becoming autoconfirmed, creates a fully formed article in their sandbox that displays that the user is familiar with both Mediawiki syntax and ENWP policy. As an example account that I believe should reasonably be blocked: User:PetarrPoznic. (Please note that besides for displaying the described editing pattern, they have a behavioral link to CitizenNeutral, an account blocked by User:Dcoetzee under Wiki-PR's ban.) Is PetarrPoznic an account run by someone under an existing community ban? I can't say that with any surety. But their behavioral pattern indicates strongly that they are an experienced user running a sockpuppet to promote commercial interests, and thus, they (and similar accounts) should be blocked, even if we cannot fully untangle the web of paid editors running them - they aren't here to constructively build an encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. Whatever the correct response to screwing up the Morning277 SPI should be, it shouldn't be to permit blocking accounts on a mere suspicion, using whatever criteria seems to fit. But if we are going to give admins wider discrecion to block on suspicion, that's an issue which needs wider engagement. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocking based on a pattern of behavioral evidence is standard practice in most SPI's, which can be patrolled by any admin, isn't it? (Which is exactly what I'm trying to suggest here, except that because behavioral evidence is driven by their shared motive, we can't link people to unique groups 100%.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence we've used in the past has been to block because the behavior matches that of a known editor. What you are asking for is permission to block on the far more generic criteria that the behavior simply matches editing while using a sock. That would be a problem, but combined with the choice to use undefined criteria by which to determine if the account is a problem, I can only see this leading to a large increase in incorrect blocks. There are times when we should permit such blocks, but I feel that they should be the result of cautious application of IAR and deliberation, rather than just having blanket permission for the actions. - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There's literally dozens of unactioned on accounts in the archives of the Morning277 SPI, and there's another batch getting ready to be archived, of which at least a couple are sockpuppets of experienced paid editors. I previously had another 50 or 60 user accounts sitting in a word doc, which is now lost somewhere after I realized the difficulties of getting blocks through on the morning277 SPI. Wiki-PR's claim of 12k clients is credible, and NF mentions below finding at least four discrete groups of paid editors socking. We need an alternative to SPI's that effectively no longer block anyone despite the fact that no one involved in the SPI's really believes that most of the accounts in question aren't paid editors socking. I feel like most admins are not going to go ahead and be blocking people left and right based on this mandate - and really it's something arguably within blocking policy as it stands anyway, since socking is highlighted as an especially blockable offense.

I'm more than up for revising the wording or mechanism involved, but we need a way to deal with socking paid editors that everyone agrees are socking paid editors, and currently we don't have one. Morning277's SPI got effectively shut down due to conflation - which is fair enough - but an alternative pathway is needed. Any admin who started handing out incorrect blocks under this left and right would get up to arbcom rapidly enough given that blocks are reviewable. As this is currently written, legitimate users who just happen to exactly mimic the behavioral patterns of socking paid editors can appeal, and a second patrolling admin can look it over and decide. I'm more than up for adding additional controls to it, but unless we want to accept the presence of huge numbers of paid sockpuppets, a mechanism to get rid of them is required. Hell, we can require a no-master block to require the separate consent of two admins if needed. Or have an SPI set up for 'Nomaster'. But *something* is needed.

If necessary, tomorrow afternoon I'll put together a list of three or four dozen user accounts that are from behavioral evidence obviously paid socks, and which I'm pretty certain you'd agree are paid socks. (I have a bunch of GLAM and edu presentations in the morning.) I'd block them myself, but given my involvement in the Wiki-PR incident, I don't feel comfortable blocking socks (wp:involved) of paid editors even if they aren't provable as Wiki-PR socks, though I do think that doing so is already within the technical wording of our blocking policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The SPI got shot down because the SPI wasn't effective. The accounts were either completely different editors, using unrelated IPs, in different countries, (which covers most of the Wiki-PR ones) or they were being used by someone well versed in how to keep from being detected with a checkuser. So they couldn't be handled by checkuser. Couple that with often very limited behavioural evidence (editing a page that was believed to be created by a suspect account), and the sheer number of accounts being listed that were flooding the process, and SPI wasn't a viable path. - Bilby (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It was quite effective at closing the accounts of paidsock editors using behavioral patterns - it just wasn't effective at figuring out paidmaster owned them. We have more than 400 Morning277 socks bagged and tagged, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there's been a grand total of one successful appeal of a morning277 block, right? I agree with you that not being able to ID the master means that it can't be handled in the context of the SPI for morning277 effectively, but we need some way to handle this. What would you suggest? Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The language is part of the problem - you refer to socks, but they aren't. They're often new editors being paid to copy an article across. That's why SPI didn't work. The reasoning behind the decision was explained here. I didn't keep track of all the names, but a few editors were blocked by mistake. My concern is that we made mistakes using the current framework - using an much broader one, which doesn't include criteria under which it operates, risks increasing the number of errors.

The problem comes from conflating the multiple separate groups. The behavioural evidence becomes overly broad because of the different behaviours being considered. It got particularly nasty when editors who did not fit the pattern were included because of a belief that Morning277 was watching the SPI and changing his behaviour to suit. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, I don't need a link to the reasoning. I read it in multiple channels and had quite a few discussions about it at the time. I thought that closing the SPI without working to establish an alternate route was an error at the time, and frankly, still think so. I remember precisely one editor who was blocked by mistake and unblocked, but I seem to remember that being a balance of probabilities unblock and not a 100% clearcut error. Discounting socks that were blocked without categorizing them (and there were quite a few,) there were more than 400 bagged and tagged in the SPI, so even if four were in error (and normally I associate 'a few' with less than four) that's still a 1% error rate.

Meatpuppetry is a subset of our sockpuppetry policy, and I don't believe it makes sense to say that meats can't go to SPI - moreover, they're accepted in most SPI's. Yes, many blocks were of meats. Yes, there was significant conflation in the SPI and yes, it probably makes sense to approach blocks without attributing paidsock-ownership. Yes, the investigation became difficult. More than 99% of the blocks made through the SPI blocked people who deserve to be blocked. An investigation becoming difficult isn't a good reason to throw your hands in the air. Although most of my contributions were through email because for a period of time I went to school with four Wiki-PR employees, it may be worth mentioning for clarity that I've been involved with pointing out paid sockchains related to this pretty much as long as anyone except Dennis, and have been active at every stage of the investigation.

I recognize as valid the concerns that multiple people have pointed out about my original proposal, but I'd like to reiterate my original question to you: we need some way to handle this. What would you suggest? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also been involved in this from the outset with Morning277, and would like to see them stopped. But I honestly don't think we can do much more than we are doing - we will need to miss accounts that can't be clearly shown to be connected, but we block those that can. I think a number of those listed by Ansh will and should be blocked, in spite of my concerns about the process, and the last big list had most of the accounts blocked as well, so it isn't as if we aren't making some impact. (If it is true that Wiki-PR aren't editing here any more, then that would be real progress as well). I do wish we could separate the two groups, but it is way too late for that to be viable.

Fundamentally, my feeling is just that your proposal is too broad - it lacks the checks needed to make it work. Personally, I just feel the we give up too much if we move to institutionalising blocking based on suspicion, especially where the criteria can't be defined. The example you gave was a valid one, might well warrant blocking, and probably will be blocked. But this risks moving to blocking accounts because they edited a suspect page, or blocking because they looked too experienced when they started editing (both reasons raised in the current list of suspected accounts). In one sense I'd like to do this too, but I don't feel comfortable with how broad it is. - Bilby (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Acting in an administrative capacity, blocking purely PR-for-money-motivated shills that create groups of socks, does not make you "involved". You can keep blocking them. The proposal language is too vague and needs streamlining. Doc talk 07:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc - in this case I'm considering myself involved not because of purely administrative actions, but because of the fact that I've basically called a prominent person involved in a particular sockfarm nasty names in the media, and have had significant email interactions with them. I'm not sure everyone would consider me too involved to block the account I named in my initial post, but I suspect that many would. I'm totally fine with streamlining, but we need something now that the relevant SPI's are primarily shutdown. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would argue in your case with WikiPR that since the editor is banned, "involved" does not apply to that particular case/group. "In straightforward cases (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Screw that banned guy. Doc talk 08:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• We need to be somewhat cautious here. I will say that when running checks for various SPIs I've uncovered at least 4 discrete groups of paid editing socks. NativeForeigner 05:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I want to highlight the potential scariness of this comment: a sitting arbcom member and longstanding checkuser just said that he knows of at least four discrete groups of paid editing sockpuppets. And currently, we've more or less stopped blocking most of them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's time to drop the idea that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That idea was useful in the first decade, for the purpose of quickly building the encyclopedia. Now that the project has matured, it's time to require a real life identity linked to the user account. Yes, I know that very few people here will agree with me, but the problem of PR editors would be solved by such a change, so here is where I must suggest it again. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit the edit not the editor. If the edit follows rules and policies it doesn't matter who is paying for what. If it doesn't, it still doesn't matter. Britmax (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That approach is based on the assumption that good editors are a dime-a-dozen, when in fact POV pushers and promotional exploiters vastly outnumber good editors. Also, the dice are loaded against good editors—a paid PR flack can quickly add fluff with dubious refs, while a good editor might have to work for two hours to replace the gumph with something neutral and encyclopedic, only to be reverted next day. PR flacks don't care about edit warring or being blocked—they have no long-term commitment to the project and can create another account to get their next pay check on another article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm - unfortunately - agreeing with JohnUniq on this one. AGF works only when a good chunk of people are actually acting in good faith. When a huge chunk of people are not only acting in bad faith, but are motivated by $2,000 a pop to keep their edit in place any way they can, it's critically difficult to deal with them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is quite reasonable. I think it would be good to use a specific block notice and make a streamlined appeal process available. But yes, behavioral evidence is and always has been enough for a block. That we don't know for certain who the paymaster is isn't a good reason to not block. We do want to watch for getting too many false positives. 1%, in my mind, is acceptable here. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a specific block notice would be a good idea that lays out what I outlined in my OP without being accusatory - basically, that their behavior matches that of many banned paidsock masters, that because of the potential for damage to the encyclopedia, we've decided to air on the side of caution and block accounts that display such a pattern, and that politely requests that if they are here for different reasons, they briefly explain why. What did you have in mind for a streamlined appeal process? Since blocked users cannot post anywhere but their own talk pages, I was thinking the standard unblock template would be okay. An alternative unblock template that automatically categorizes them and transcludes their unblock requests to a centralized location or something like that might be a good idea though (but I haven't thought through alternatives, and am genuinely curious to hear what you were thinking of.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• So, I started the most recent SPI after the CitizenNeutral thing, looking at the history of pages that were listed by Dcotetzee in his block reasoning and listing out any suspicious editors. I apologize for not doing enough research on the batch; it was late and I shouldn't have been doing it at that time. The reason that I filed them under Morning277 is that there is literally no other place to go with them. I did see several that clearly fit the Wiki-PR mold (PetarrPoznic, Princessoftides, possibly others I don't remember) and assumed the rest that I'd spotted were similar; the editors that have commented do seem to agree that most are promotional accounts, but nobody can say whether they're part of a large company like Wiki-PR or individual editors or something else. I think this in general is a reasonable proposal, though it does need to be fleshed out - I'd suggest, in addition to what Hobit says above, a specialized page, whether standalone or on SPI, where they can be reported but not tied to a certain "sockmaster". Ansh666 20:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem was not that you included some genuinely likely and possible accounts - the problem was that you also included editors which didn't show anything to suggest that they were Wiki-PR accounts, and one case definitely wasn't one. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bilby: That is exactly what I was trying to say, and what I apologized for. Thanks for putting it in simpler terms!... Ansh666 01:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as written A pattern is not sufficient proof for a ban. Banning on mere suspicion is bad for the encyclopedia and against policy (not to mention all that Misplaced Pages stands for). There needs to be a centralized page where possible PR socks can be reported, but this proposal is not the answer. Not every PR editor fits into a mold, and not every good faith editor fails to fit into this mold either. KonveyorBelt 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Streamlining the process is a simple application of WP:NOTHERE coupled with the common sense admission that the community cannot take two days to debate every throw-away account that just happens to start adding promotional gumph. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why we need to have a streamlined area similar to AIV. Report PR editors, get 'em blocked. KonveyorBelt 22:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're opposing as written but agree that something needs to be done, please propose an alternative in slightly more detail as a subsection of this section. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal: A separate and Dedicated noticeboard for reporting suspected PR socks

My initial idea is an AIV type place where suspected PR socks could be reported. There would be no requirement for anything, but a example of what constistutes a PR soc is described above as

a user who has a one to two sentence userpage, who, after a series of ten edits to existing articles that are marked as minor and lack edit summaries and after becoming autoconfirmed, creates a fully formed article in their sandbox that displays that the user is familiar with both Mediawiki syntax and ENWP policy.

But there would be a certain protocol for is and isn't allowed. By PR socks I mean accounts obviously working as part of a network of socks, sometimes with no one sockmaster because there is no main account. This would not include editors that are not throwaway accounts, even if they have a COI. That would have to be discussed at ANI.

This noticeboard is being proposed so that at least multiple sets of eyes can assess it, which would lead to less wrongful blocks , as well as providing a centralized area to hold larger discussions about sets of socks, such as the WikiExperts block discussions. KonveyorBelt 00:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Herlyn Blanco and User:Annable Rubino and User:Annaliza Febrero

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Created with same format to person articles, please check--Musamies (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI? ES&L 11:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

All blocked along with four other accounts and pages deleted. I'm not sure who this is, but there are numerous related accounts stretching back to mid-November at least. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:RfA reform (continued)

Hey guys, I don't know where else to talk about this since it's not a policy or guideline or anything major like that, but has the RFA reform project gone inactive yet, and should I tag it with the {{historical}} template? I was about to start a thread or RFC myself on setting some standards for adminship like minimum 1000 total edits or some such until I noticed that this page was listed at WP:PEREN on how to possibly reform the process. In light of this new information, my RFC would probably have failed as another attempt to restart a PEREN proposal. Sad face. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

RFA reform is perennial. I wouldn't tag anything as inactive, and please do not try and suggest minimums ES&L 10:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Any prospects for rational reform of the admin system has long been terminally dead. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)

As RfA/Adminship reform is permanently under discussion (most especially at WT:RfA), and as Misplaced Pages:RfA reform (continued) is the one single largest respository of research data on the topic, I do not think it would be appropriate to mark it as historical; it's made up of numerous sub pages which do occasionally still receive comments. Indeed, there are a great deal of facts in it than can be drawn upon when launching new RfCs. That said, minimum criteria for candidacy do not appear to be the major problem. if anything, although perhaps not in the majority, there is a significant number of commentators who suggest that the current criteria applied by !voters may be setting the bar too high. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I wasn't aware of any active subpages that still had incoming comments and were still gathering data. Guess I should have checked more thoroughly. Could you point some links to them by any chance? Some of the information there may prove enlightening yet about the current state of RFA. While it's true that some of the arbitrary requirements and criteria are due more to the voters' reasonings than to the candidates' eligibility, the purpose of the original proposal I would have planned out was that, despite my disagreements on whether there should be any minimums at all, the fact of the matter remains these arbitrary minimums do exist based on certain !voter standards. It's not our job to determine what should be current practice at RFA, but to document what is (prescriptivist vs descriptivist) and based on the activity of such voters at RFA I think it would be wise to advise potential RFA applicants what the arguments of some of their opposers are going to look like. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Those already are described - there's multiple "advice for potential candidates" pages ES&L 11:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

But not on Misplaced Pages:Administrators. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't belong on that page, based on the topic. It's about potential admins, not processes for current admins ES&L 11:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But there is at WP:RFAADVICE which has become, I believe, a major reference although it's 'only' an essay, but it's linked to from around 200 other places.. Efforts made by a few of us have seemed to successfully stemmed the tide of totally inappropriate candidacies, although on rare occasions nowadays, one or two slip through. They are generally nipped early in the bud however, to save the candidate too much embarrassment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe having this discussion in too many different places has kept it from coalescing. Maybe we should pick one place and refer everything to there. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFAADVICE is the most comprehensive single source of information for prospective candidates. Perhaps it should be promoted to 'Guide'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Where to put the proposal though? And it should probably be linked to Misplaced Pages:Administrators and vice versa, probably in the See Also section. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9

Can an admin please remove File:Seal of Haryana.jpg from all non-articles? most of the uses are being created via templates, which I cannot remove it from. Werieth (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Most of the uses of this image were removed with this edit to Module:Portal/images/h. Now its up to the job queue to catch up, or you can force it with a null edit to each page. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Article previously deleted?

Was this article previously deleted? It was recreated a few minutes ago, and as I can remember, I saw it being created a few hours ago. --BiH (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

yep as a G11 --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPER

Hi all, WP:SPER has a backlog of close to 100 requests. If everyone here can do just 1 each, this should be gone in under 12 hours. Many of these are simple to answer; just use {{ESp}} to answer.

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC of interest

Administrators and other editors here may perhaps be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC about listing discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

ISSUE REQUIRES AT LEAST SOME ATTENTION (over 24 hours)!!!!

I know that you are watching for vandals, can you kindly watch this guy user talk:200.219.132.104. He is now under user talk:200.219.132.103 and still does destructive editing. Check his edits here and here and many where else. And over here someone gave him a right to revert, so he reverted a bot. Could you be so kind to intervene, as his edits look a lot like destruction.--Mishae (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, frankly, I am not such a good vandal watcher. I raise a flag every now and then. It does not seem that his actions are destructive, although are weird. It seems that he is correcting some code syntax to keep consistency. Did I miss anything? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, he put spaces after every carriage and that's his edits. He also substitutes RU and UK icons with (Russian and Ukrainian) which makes difficult to see which site is English and which isn't. According to WP:DEST his edits are considered to be unproductive and in some cases harmful since because of his mania to put spaces he sometimes deletes titles. More, he even substitutes cite news with Citation which makes no sense. Since I don't have revering tool I was forced manually to cite references as well as add those icons back in the Euromaidan article. I could have done more ref citations if not for this guy.--Mishae (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, let's address it with administrators for consideration. The articles are too big to track after all the changes and codes. Your concerns are valid and need to be addressed by somebody with bigger authority to prevent possible roll backs in future. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I already let user @Kudpung: know, but I think he will be too busy to reply. See, on one hand he had a good edit such trans_title= for foreign articles but on the other hand he doesn't need to move the carriages back and forward and substitute already good text with something less appealing.--Mishae (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, have you posted the issue at WP:ANI? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, guess what? I went to ANI, the admin told me to post it to AVI (Also he mentioned that some of the IPs were from Brazil). I posted it to AVI and they removed my comment (twice) at the end saying that it doesn't belong to ANI! I thought that Misplaced Pages have measures against disruptive editing???!!! Like, do anybody at ANI consider the seriousness of this or its O.K. now to do edits like this without any consequence what so ever. Furthermore, a guy here mentioned about a destructive edit and at the same time says "I fixed it now, but it doesn't warrant a block" and sends a ref to a minor edit. This is ridiculous because I wasted posting those comments till 1 fucking am, trying to convince the admins (which I shouldn't even call them that anymore) to take action. And what's worse, it continues! And this, is after my revert. Although the edit is good overall substitution of Sfn for ref name= doesn't make any sense, also editing author link as Pope Paul VI instead of his biographer's name. Like I smell that his next edit will be here and what's the point?--Mishae (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, Kudpung gave you a good advice filing petition at the "Requests for page protection". That way it would be possible to establish some control over the page. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, yea, it is pretty frustrating. I apologize for sending you there. I will try to address it with Russian administrators such as Ezhiki, may be it will be more productive. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, what's even worse? Is that I reported them not 1, not 2, but 4 IP addresses which were doing the same edits from Brazil and one more from somewhere else. I'm shocked that while other users receive at least a thank you (let alone a barnstar), I get ignored by the whole Misplaced Pages community regarding disruptive editing, which as we all know is a no-no here.--Mishae (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, are you following on your posts at ANI or AVI? What is the section title? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I requested a protection on most of them. Lets see what gonna happen.--Mishae (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Link one and Link two both of which were from AVI.--Mishae (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc (talk · contribs) issued a short term rangeblock. I'm too busy to look but I'll keep an eye on it and make sure it gets some attention. NativeForeigner 07:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WP Canvassing

There is WP Canvassing on the Yemen article by MiddayExpress. He has contacted: AcidSnow, Inaytiy and Til Eulenspiegel, editors he has had close interactions with in the past in pro-Somalia articles, none who have recently or extensively edited the Yemen article. He has not contacted the Non-Pro-Somalia or other users that have edited the Yemen article extensively or recently. Looking at his user history it seems he and the other editors involved have routinely WP:Canvassed each other on other topics relating to Somalia and Arabs, especially Inaytiy and AcidSnow, and MiddayExpress has edited his page often (by archiving and removing posts by these users in order to respond only on their talk page) to disguise the frequency of this. I don't have time to dig in but these actions are common on Arab-related articles by these users probably due to issues relating to Somalia's contested status in the Arab League/Arab World (Somalia's attempts to integrate with Arab World, and rejection by many Arab states for various racial, linguistic, and cultural reasons). Whatever the case this WP: Canvassing by these pro-Somalia editors is destructive to the Yemen and other Arab articles. YemenWarriorBoy (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog